Testing the Interface Hypothesis: The evidence from fossilized errors in the use of Turkish case markers

Abstract

Sorace & Filiaci (2006) proposed the Interface Hypothesis (IH), according to which interface structures requiring interface between syntax and other cognitive domains are more likely to be vulnerable to incomplete acquisition and fossilization than structures that involve syntactic knowledge only. The aim of this study is to provide a piece of evidence validating or rejecting the IH by investigating the use of case markers in Turkish by native speakers of Russian who are highly proficient speakers of Turkish and have been residing in Turkey for a long period. Fictional narratives are used in the study as the tool for data collection. The findings reveal that the participants demonstrate native-like use of Turkish case markers the production of which does not involve external interface. The use of case markers of direct objects, which involves the activation of external interface, is marked with fossilized errors and/or incomplete acquisition in the production of the participants. The findings of the study can be used as a piece of evidence in favor of the IH.

L2 acquisition of Wh-interrogatives at the syntax-discourse interface: interface hypothesis again

“…The IH effects, as well as the difference between internal and external interfaces, were supported by empirical studies cross-linguistically with a wide range of L1s and L2s (see e.g. Sorace 2006 , et seq ; Tsimpli and Sorace 2006 ; Sorace and Serratrice 2009 ; Belletti et al 2007 ; Antonova-Ünlü 2015 ; Chamorro and Sorace 2018 ; Smeets 2018 ). For example, Tsimpli and Sorace (2006) investigate the interface hypothesis in a study involving 27 adult Russian learners of Greek.…”

Interfaces in the returnees’ heritage language: Is the complete (re-)activation possible?

“…The use of case marking on direct objects has been in the scope of studies investigating the use of case markers by L2 learners of Turkish with different L1 backgrounds (Altunkol and Balcı, 2013;Akdoğan, 1993;Antonova-Unlu, 2015, Antonova-Unlu & Li Wei, 2020Gürel, 2000;Güven, 2007;Haznedar, 2006;Papadopoulou et al, 2011).…”

“…However, the possibility of incomplete/imperfect acquisition of the HL structures should not be excluded and, therefore, ‘(re-)activation’ of the HL may mean learning anew of, at least, some domains in an immersion environment. In the ‘new’ learning after the onset of puberty, interface domains are expected to be difficult to learn as it is predicted by the Interface Hypothesis (Sorace & Filiaci, 2006) and demonstrated by numerous studies validating it (Antonova-Unlu, 2015; Antonova-Unlu & Wei, 2020; Cuza et al, 2013; Iverson et al, 2008; Massery & Fuentes, 2017). Therefore, we hypothesize that among all the domains, interfaces will be a strong candidate for susceptibility to (re-)activation in the HL.…”

“…The use of case marking on direct objects has been in the scope of studies investigating the use of case markers by L2 learners of Turkish with different L1 backgrounds (Akdoğan, 1993; Altunkol & Balcı, 2013; Antonova-Unlu, 2015; Antonova-Unlu & Wei, 2020; Gürel, 2000; Güven, 2007; Haznedar, 2006; Papadopoulou et al, 2011). The findings of these studies have shown that using case marking on direct objects (accusative or zero) was problematic for all the L2 users of Turkish even at the advanced levels of proficiency and independently from their L1 backgrounds.…”

“…Further, the IH has been extended to bilingual language acquisition and attrition, and, last but not least, IH has been suggested as relevant to the HL development (see Montrul & Polinsly, 2011). So far, numerous studies have validated the vulnerability of interfaces across different acquisitional contexts, including the HL context (Antonova-Unlu, 2015; Antonova-Unlu & Wei, 2020; Arslan et. al, 2015; Cuza et al, 2013; Iverson et al, 2008 among others).…”